Prevenient Grace (9)

Dr. William Theophilus Brantly, Sr.

(1787-1845)

Dr. Peter Lumpkins a few years back wrote an article on his web page (which is no longer available) about Dr. Brantly's views on the Calvinistic doctrine known as "irresistible grace" and titled "W.T. Brantly on denying irresistible grace." In that article wrote Dr. Lumpkins (highlighting mine):

"William Theophilus Brantly, Sr. (1787-1845) was a popular preacher in the south during the first half of the 19th century, and served Philadelphia's historic First Baptist Church as pastor. Additionally, as editor of The Christian Index, Georgia Baptists denominational state paper, he was one of the most prolific Baptist editors in the United States. The Christian Index is the nation's oldest continually published religious newspaper dating back to 1822 with the legendary Luther Rice as its first editor. Brantly edited the newspaper from 1827 to 1833, at which time the paper was moved to Washington, Ga., and assigned to the capable editorial skills of Jesse Mercer."

Peter wrote further:

"On the other hand, the subject of irresistible grace remained perfectly clear so far as Brantly was concerned. In short, he did not accept the strong Calvinistic insistence on the unalterable nature of initial grace, especially its supposed "irresistibility." In the same sermon quoted above entitled, "God's Gracious Purpose," a sermon based upon the text, "Who will have all men saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 1:4), Brantly unequivocally rejected the notion of irresistible grace, assigning the "I" in T.U.L.I.P. to the heap of abusive interpretation of God's Word. After rehearsing the position of those who embrace some form of irresistible grace, a grace allegedly designed to "subdue all their opposition [to being saved] by a violence of divine compassion which will drag them away from the jaws of destruction," Brantly remarks:

"And my first observation tending to obviate that difficulty, is that the grace of God as put forth and exerted in the salvation of sinners, is not irresistible. 

*When I say that grace is not irresistible, I must be understood to mean, that it does not act upon the soul by any coercive necessity, to the exclusion of rational motives and inducements; and that it does not so oblige any to be saved, as that they cannot procure final condemnation for themselves, if they please." [original footnote by Brantly]

The sermon Lumpkins cites can be read (here). As we will see, when Brantly says "that the grace of God as put forth and exerted in the salvation of sinners is not irresistible" he does not deny that the grace of God exerted in the salvation of the elect will always be successful. What he affirms is that the elect will be made willing by divine persuasion so that they come to Christ most willingly. He does not believe that those saved are drawn to Christ kicking and screaming and contrary to their will. But, more on this as we go further.

Lumpkins then writes:

"Brantly then concludes:

"Be the doctrine of election what it may, it evidently teaches nothing inconsistent with the idea that salvation is so propounded to all men, as to make its acceptance or rejection a possible thing. This acceptance or rejection is also made to depend upon the free arbitration of a power within us, and however that power may be influenced, controlled or impelled in forming its determinations, it is laid under no necessity either of acceptance or rejection, because either is possible, which could not be if compulsion intervened.

From all which I conclude, that election is of grace and not of necessity; that it effects nothing towards any man's salvation, independently of repentance and faith; and that it therefore makes no provision for irresistible grace. That the Holy Spirit does exert a greater influence upon some minds than upon others within the pale of the same visible administration of means; and that this greater influence must account for the conversion of some, whilst others remain unconverted, is what I fully believe. That salvation too is wholly of the grace of God, and that it is God that worketh in us both to will and to do, is a position to which my mind fully accords. But I am equally confident in the belief that all this is done without the least interference with the freedom of the human soul."

Lumpkins then says: "If I may repeat: a stronger denial of irresistible grace is hard to imagine." 

However, Lumpkins, being a Southern Baptist who despises Calvinism, is too anxious in his desire to have Brantly placed in his anti Calvinistic camp. Brantly was a Calvinist, although like other Calvinists, believed that the atonement of Christ had general aspects to it, though it was particularly for the elect. He believed in the doctrine of unconditional election. So, all that being said, why did Brantly say that he did not believe in irresistible grace? 

Many people do not understand the "I" in the acronym TULIP, or the doctrine of "irresistible grace." In fact, many Calvinists have avoided that label and have preferred other terms such as "effectual calling" or "efficacious grace." This is because "irresistible grace" gives the impression that they believe that grace is never resisted, which is what most Calvinists deny believing. The fact is, sinners universally resist God's grace, God's word and gospel, God's Spirit, God's gracious invitations and calls to be saved. In the case of those who have been chosen to salvation before time began, however, that resistance is overcome by special grace and greater power exerted. This is what Brantly asserted in the above citation. He said:

"That the Holy Spirit does exert a greater influence upon some minds than upon others within the pale of the same visible administration of means; and that this greater influence must account for the conversion of some, whilst others remain unconverted, is what I fully believe."

So, if we ask why some sinners who are called by the gospel and experience some operations of the Spirit and some degree of prevenient grace are saved and others not, Brantly would rightly say it is because in the case of those who are actually saved (the elect) the Holy Spirit "exerts a greater influence." Brantly says that "this greater influence" is the reason why some are saved when their resistance is overcome. I certainly agree with that position as have many other Calvinists, as we will see.

Dr. Brantly said further:

"But let me not be misunderstood when I affirm that the grace of God is not irresistible. My meaning is this: it offers no violence to the natural dispositions of the human heart. The power which attends it, is not coercive, is not imperative, is not an authoritative driving of the soul into a new condition of being. It does not so arrest, and so oblige the sinner by superior force, as to divest him of all personal liberty, and cast him into the imprisonment of an unwelcome custody.

The power which grace exerts is the power of persuasion, of illumination, or of attraction. The energy which accompanies it is far from the asperities of constraint; the efficiency which it possesses, though approaching towards compulsion, yet stops short of it. It calls the soul effectually, moves it by rational inducements, rouses it from the sleepy torpor of unbelief, and informs it by the teachings of the Holy Spirit; but in all this there is nothing that impairs the freedom of choice, or of action."

I cannot disagree with this although I might have expressed what he says a little differently. In this post (here) I show that God is able to successfully persuade anyone, or win affection, when he wills to do so, for he can turn on the charm, open the eyes to see the beauty of Christ, and draw the attention and the heart to him. In that post I wrote:

Perhaps a better term for "irresistible grace" would be "conquering grace," or "victorious grace," for God does conquer and capture the will of sinners, taking the will captive to Christ and freeing it from depravity. It is like taming wild horses by "breaking" them by a "bronco buster." Man is born like a wild ass's colt (Job 11: 12) and has a stubborn obstinate will like a mule or jackass. His will must be broken by Christ. When he rides the sinner the sinner will be convicted (against his will I might add) and his will tamed to serve Christ. So we see this in the conversion experience of the apostle Paul.

I have also shown how coming to love God and his Son Jesus Christ is compelling and irresistible with some (and these are the elect) so that they fall in love passively and yet actively too for they set their affections and love upon Christ whom they have seen as "altogether lovely." So Paul says - "For the love of Christ constraineth us." (II Cor. 5: 14 kjv) Or, as the ESV -  "For the love of Christ controls us." Or, as the NIV - "For Christ’s love compels us." Further, doing something freely does not exclude being compelled. As stated previously, I came to Christ willingly and freely and yet I was also effectually drawn and compelled. Jesus spoke of this when he charged servants to "Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled." (Luke 14: 23) Yes, the compelling was done by words, by exhortations, by persuasive speech, but still it is compelling. Those whom God especially wills to persuade compellingly, he does so without fail. To show that God can successfully persuade any time he chooses, let us observe this text from the old testament.

Brantly said: 

"That the Holy Spirit does exert a greater influence upon some minds than upon others within the pale of the same visible administration of means; and that this greater influence must account for the conversion of some, whilst others remain unconverted, is what I fully believe."

Again, I agree. This is where it is important to pay close attention to the word "especially" in regard to what God does for the elect.

"For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." (I Tim. 4: 10 nkjv)

The word "especially" means "most of all" and denotes a difference. Another similar text is this:

"Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith." (Gal. 6: 10 nkjv)

God is the only appointed Savior for all men, and he is the one who is the preserver of all men. Every man is alive because God has willed it and made it so. But, he is in a greater way the Savior and Keeper of believers or of the elect. God is good to all, but especially good to believers, to the elect, to his own people (People show the same distinction when they love all men and yet love their own more especially). So, we may also say that God wills or desires that all men be saved from sin and death, but especially wills or desires the salvation of the elect. Wrote Paul:

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (I Tim. 2: 3-4 nkjv) 

This text has been a hotly debated one between Arminians and Calvinists. However, not all Calvinists deny that God desires the salvation of every sinner. Some Calvinists will argue that by "all men" is meant "all classes of men," or "all men without distinction but not all men without exception." That view is possible, but I am one of those Calvinists who think rather that by "all men" is meant every sinner and is expressing the same idea as in these words of the Lord to Ezekiel:

"Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’" (Eze. 33: 11 nkjv)

If God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, then it must be that it is rather his pleasure that they be saved. Besides, it is stated by the apostle that God not only desires that all men be saved but that they also all "come to the knowledge of the truth." Surely no one wants to affirm that God desires that people believe what is not true. On I Timothy 2: 2-4 I have written several posts over the years. For instance, see these (here, here). In the latter post I cited these words of Calvinist Charles H. Spurgeon:

"You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, - "that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the Word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for whom am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the Word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 26, Pilgrim Publications, p.50.)

God loves all men, but he especially loves his elect. God wills the salvation of all men, but especially wills or desires the salvation of the elect. God calls and invites all men to come to him for salvation, through the gospel, but he especially calls and invites the elect. God, through the preaching of his word, and the common operations of the Spirit, works to overcome resistance of stubborn sinners, but with the elect he exerts greater power so as to overcome all their resistance. That is what Brantly affirmed. With the elect there is greater grace and power given and exercised and this is what makes all the difference. The text does not say that God "equally wills" or "equally desires" that all be saved and know the truth.

In "The Common Operations of the Spirit" Travis Fentiman (See here) gives citations from many old Puritan writers to show that they also agreed with Brantly and the view I am espousing. For instance, he cites from the Westminster Larger Catechism which says (emphasis mine):

"68. Are the elect only effectually called? All the elect, and they only, are effectually called; although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the word, and have some common operations of the Spirit; who, for their willful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ."

He also called attention to The Westminster Confession of Faith (Ch. 10.4) which says: 

“Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved…”

Fentiman also cites from Thomas Vincent (1669) and his work "The Conversion of a Sinner, Explained and Applied," being a sermon on Eze. 33:11, 1669 (in The Puritans on Conversion, reprinted Soli Deo Gloria, 1990, pp. 105-7 5). Vincent wrote:

 "God calls upon sinners to turn to Him by the internal voice and motions of His Spirit…"

There is a twofold call of the Spirit: more common and more special.

1. More common, and so many are called which never are thoroughly converted. It was the common work of the Spirit which made Felix tremble, which brought Agrippa within a step of Christianity and caused Herod to do many things. Multitudes of unregenerate ones have felt the waters stirred, the Holy Ghost moving them to conversion, and have readily proffered His aid and assistance, and perhaps, for awhile, they have been led by Him. But then they have refused to let go of some lust or vanity which He has bid them abandon. They would not turn their spiritual sloth into serious diligence about the concerns of their immortal souls, and so by disregarding His motions, and by slighting His help, they have made the Spirit to go away in grief who came in love to work upon them.

2. There is a call of the Spirit which is more special and efficacious…" 

In another web page by Fentiman titled "On the Compatibility of Irresistible & Resistible Grace" (See here) he writes the following in the introduction (emphasis mine):

"Herman Bavinck and William Cunningham, two respected reformed theologians, describe below how the historical origin and intention of the term (and concept) of ‘irresistible grace’ was not meant to deny resistible grace. Shedd closely describes and synthesizes the Holy Spirit’s sincere, common strivings with those who resist them and finally perish under the gospel call, and His choice to put forth His irresistible power in overcoming the resistance of, and effectually drawing, some unto salvation."

By "reformed theologians" he means Calvinists.

Fentiman wrote further:

"For an introduction to this teaching of scripture, of the compatibility of resistible and irresistible grace, with many Bible verses and 60+ quotes demonstrating it from reformed history, see The Common Operations of the Spirit."

We will give some of the Calvinists that Fentiman showed agreed with Brantly and with Spurgeon and other Calvinists such as I. Fentiman cites Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) and his "Reformed Dogmatics"  (1895-1899), 4:82-83, wherein Bavinck wrote the following: 

 

“The term “irresistible grace” is not really of Reformed origin but was used by Jesuits and Remonstrants to characterize the doctrine of the efficacy of grace as it was advocated by Augustine and those who believed as he did. The Reformed in fact had some objections to the term because it was absolutely not their intent to deny that grace is often and indeed always resisted by the unregenerate person and therefore could be resisted. 

They therefore preferred to speak of the efficacy or of the insuperability of grace, or interpreted the term ‘irresistible’ in the sense that grace is ultimately irresistible. The point of the disagreement, accordingly, was not whether humans continually resisted and could resist God’s grace, but whether they could ultimately–at the specific moment in which God wanted to regenerate them and work with his efficacious grace in their heart–still reject that grace.”

It is a basic premise of Calvinism to say that "God can save anyone at any time he chooses." Even many Arminians agree with this if we take a look at how they pray, regardless of what they say they believe. When an Arminian prays for someone's salvation, saying "Lord, please save Mary," for instance, such a request to God assumes that God can do that any time he pleases. I wrote about this in this post (here). I cited the following from Spurgeon who said:

"You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say, but you never heard an Arminian prayer - for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying,

'Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a change, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not-that is the difference between me and them.'"

Fentiman wrote further, citing William Cunningham (1805-1861) and "Historical Theology," vol. 2 (1862; Banner of Truth, 1994), ch. 25, ‘The Arminian Controversy’, Section 6, ‘Efficacious & Irresistible Grace’, pp. 408-9, where Cunningham said: 

 

“Calvinists, indeed, do not admit that it is an accurate mode of stating the question, to put it in this form,—whether or not the grace or gracious operation of the Spirit be irresistible? for they do not dispute that, in some sense, men do resist the Spirit; and they admit that resistance to the Spirit may be predicated both of the elect and of the non-elect,—the non-elect having operations of the Spirit put forth upon them which they resist or throw off, and never yield to,—and the elect having generally resisted the operations of the Spirit for a time before they yielded to them." 

"They [Calvinists] object to the word irresistible, as applied to their doctrine, because of its ambiguity,—because, in one sense, they hold grace in conversion to be resistible, and in another, not. It may be said to be resistible, and to be actually resisted, inasmuch as motions or operations of the Spirit upon men’s minds—which, in their general nature and bearing, may be said to tend towards the production of conversion—are resisted, or not yielded to, by the non-elect, and for a time even by the elect; while it may be said to be irresistible,—or, as Calvinists usually prefer calling it, insuperable, or infrustratable, or certainly efficacious,—inasmuch as, according to their doctrine, whenever the gracious divine power that is sufficient to produce conversion, and necessary to effect it, is put forth, it certainly overcomes all the resistance that men are able to make, and infallibly produces the result.”

The elect are saved because they were given special superlative grace and had greater power exerted on them in making them believers, and because God specially willed and desired it.

Fentiman next cites from Peter Martyr Vermigli (1562) and his Commentary on Judges, ch. 9, pp. 167-68, wherein he wrote:

“Whether we can Resist the Grace of God, or No?

But now arises an other doubt as touching our nature as it is now fallen and corrupt, whether it can resist the grace of God and his Spirit being present, or no?

(There are sundry degrees of grace of God)

I think we must consider that there are, as it were, sundry degrees of the help or grace of God: for his might and abundance is sometimes so great that He wholly bows the will of man and does not only counsel, but also persuade. And when it so comes to pass, we cannot depart from the right way, but we are of God’s side and obey his sentence. Wherefore it was said unto Paul: “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”

Fentiman then cites Matthew Henry's Commentary on Acts, on 7:51, “…ye do always resist the Holy Ghost…” where he wrote:

 

“2. They resisted the Holy Ghost striving with them by their own consciences, and would not comply with the convictions and dictates of them. God’s Spirit strove with them as with the old world, but in vain; they resisted Him, took part with their corruptions against their convictions, and rebelled against the light. There is that in our sinful hearts that always resists the Holy Ghost, a flesh that lusts against the Spirit, and wars against his motions; but in the hearts of God’s elect, when the fullness of time comes, this resistance is overcome and overpowered, and after a struggle the throne of Christ is set up in the soul, and every thought that had exalted itself against it is brought into captivity to it, 2 Co. 10:4, 2 Co. 10:5. That grace therefore which effects this change might more fitly be called victorious grace than irresistible.”

Fentiman then cites from A.A. Hodge and his "Outlines of Theology" new ed. enlarged (London: Nelson, 1879), ch. 28, ‘The Application of Redemption…’, pp. 451-52 “20, where Hodge wrote: 

"In what sense is grace irresistible? It must be remembered that the true Christian is the subject at the same time of those moral and mediate influences of grace upon the will, common to him and to the unconverted, and also of those special influences of grace within the will, which are certainly efficacious. The first class of influences Christians may, and constantly do resist, through the law of sin remaining in their members. The second class of influences are certainly efficacious, but are neither resistible nor irresistible, because they act from within and carry the will spontaneously with them. It is to be lamented that the term irresistible grace has ever been used, since it suggests the idea of a mechanical and coercive influence upon an unwilling subject, while, in truth, it is the transcendent act of the infinite Creator, making the creature spontaneously willing.”